tkey75

Agreed. I was just asking the poster why she feels it indecent for a male TSO to screen a female pax and was provided with a 3rd grade answer of 'because it's a guy'.

Show me a story where a TSO took off his badge, convinced a woman to consent to sex with him, whipped his penis and vaginally penetrated a female, than put his badge back on and said "Ha! I'm actually a TSO!!". Then I'll have a base on which with to provide an answer.

GUWonder

When it comes to concern about sexual assault and other forms of sexual objectification beyond the confines of correctional facilities in the US, isn't there a pretty good reason why women in the US fear men more than they fear women when it comes to unwanted touching? I am guessing it has something to do with the far higher probability of a woman being sexually attacked or otherwise sexually objectified by a man than the other permutations involving same-sex or opposite-sex contact.

It seems like I may have taken too much liberty with the use of double entendres in my prior post. I suggest re-reading my prior post while keeping in mind my use of "TSA" there is an identifier much like "XYZ" is.

tkey75

I conclude the government makes no distinction between a patdown at a correctional facility and an airport checkpoint. In many instances, an airport security check is even more invasive than at certain correctional facilities. Therefore, it's no difference who does the security check - mon/woman, woman/man.



No, just not responding to your first post in this thread, which I just read. We're not talking about vaginal penetration here, just an airport frisking - but yet there's still no report of any vaginal penetration at any checkpoint. Maybe it comes to that to get a sexual misconduct (okay, call it rape at that point), but as for now, it's government sanctioned, whether a man or woman performs the enhanced patdown. So again, why does it matter what gender performs it?

GUWonder

I'm sure there's less and less distinction between how prisoners are treated and how passengers are treated by the US government.

I see your conclusion, I just don't see how you reached your conclusion based on what you posted earlier in the same paragraph.

I'm talking about the relevance of informed consent to physical contact regardless of the physical contact involving vaginal penetration or not. It generally matters when it comes to physical contact.

Just because something is government sanctioned doesn't really move me one way or another as government engages in all sorts of disgusting filth.

whitearrow

Yes. Exactly.

While male PAX may not mind (or even prefer) a female TSO (regardless of her sexual orientation) to pat them down, I doubt that most female PAX would prefer a male TSO. I doubt it very much.

tanja

This is one of the two reasons I would never be in a scanner.

I just dont accept and will not be touched by a stranger. Period.

Ok.
To me it is very indecent to be touched by a TSO male and all over other males. Unless it is ok with me.
It is also indecent to me to be touched by an TSO female.
But less since it is a female.

If I say it ok it is not.
But since I will NEVER say it is ok. It is indecent.

But both makes me to be insulted and sick to even think about it.

Each to their own.
If you dont care if it male/female TSO who does the pat down on you.
Fine that is you and up to you.

But me and a lot of other people do care.
So you have actually no rite to question me. I dont question you and your desicion.

eyecue

Valid concern. You would have to rely on the officer to be honest though and there is no way to tell. Though it is kinda like a doctor, there is no effect on them after a while.

GUWonder

No concern that the desensitization arising from frequent sexual contact may result in seeking heightened sexual adventurism? It shouldn't be a surprise that the intimate, "frisky" behavior results in TSA employees becoming more interested in same-sex adventurism.

N965VJ

Just how creepy are you trying to make the checkpoint experience?

SATTSO

Actually I disagree - this is not a valid concern. An it's why many of the views and members of the site are collectively ignored.

Amazed that this is a thread.

GUWonder

Just wait until Peggy Noonan gets her next TSA critique published in one of the leading national papers.

The TSA is getting the criticism it deserves here and increasingly elsewhere.

Welcome to more and more TSA "news": "TSA making sex workers obsolete."

goalie

The reason I started this thread was after reading this thread but kinda in reverse. Personally, I think it's a valid issue and a valid question for a person to ask to another if that other person is about to grab their crotch. How do we, the traveling public know what is and what is not a sufficient search of the crotch* with the open palm as the TSA and many Line TSO's simply state that the answer is SSI and thus we (again, the traveling public) are left in the dark without an answer.

*In other words, how long is the hand going to be exploring the crotch before a pax says, "OK, you can let go now"

LV702

Never mind the screener. I wonder what they would do if Pat needed a pat-down.

tanja

It is a valid point that you brought up.

Cause now we dont now if it is a agy person taking their chances.
A child molester doing their thing.
Or a rapist doing their thing.

How do we The Passenger now that the TSO is just doing their job.
Or doing something else.

Seems like TSO cant get Away with a lot.

Not that I am against guys. My best male friend is gay.

I just dont want to be used and sexually harrassed.

peachfront

Oh for the love of cryin' out loud! There are very few advantages to being a short female but I have to admit, as the aforementioned short female, I have often felt fortunate not to "get" this type of phobia. I've been patted down/searched by women who were pretty obviously "of an alternative lifestyle" and you know what? Didn't hurt a bit. Who cares. Is it really about the person searching you or is it about your ego? Get over yourself. The lesbian/gay person searching you is NOT interested in you, any more than your lesbian/gay med tech is interested in you. It's at work. They're wishing they were somewhere else with someone younger and better looking.

A male pax is screened by a male/a female pax is screened by a female to humor the people w/ serious hang-ups...but in the real world, a female doctor can have a male patient, a male doctor can have a female patient, and eventually it will have to filter down to where we treat everybody on the job with respect until such time as they prove they don't deserve the job/respect.

You talk about the person "grabbing your crotch." OK, but if you're a woman, every single year you go to the doctor and have a person grab your crotch. Many of us have had OB/gyns who are of the opposite sex for DECADES...and somehow we have not cracked up from being touched by a black person/male person/etcetera person. When I hire someone to do a job (screen my airline, check out my cooties) I'm not interested in his or her sex life. I just want him or her to do the job, OK?